Performance of a large language model on the reasoning tasks of a physician.
Clinical Snapshot
PICO Framework
| P — Population | Physicians and emergency department patients at a major tertiary academic medical center |
| I — Intervention | Large language model (LLM) clinical decision support |
| C — Comparator | Human physician baseline performance and expert second opinions |
| O — Outcomes | Clinical reasoning performance on diagnostic cases and real-world emergency department decision-making accuracy |
Bottom Line
This study reports that a large language model outperformed physicians on clinical reasoning tasks across multiple experiments, including real-world emergency department cases. However, the abstract provides insufficient detail for proper critical appraisal. Key missing information includes quantitative results, statistical significance, outcome definitions, and methodology for case selection and performance measurement. While the findings suggest potential for AI-assisted clinical decision-making, the lack of detailed results limits confidence in clinical applicability. Australian clinicians should await full publication and consider regulatory, legal, and practical implementation challenges before adopting such technology. Prospective randomised trials with patient-centred outcomes are needed to establish clinical utility and safety.
Key Findings
P Value: Not reported
Effect Size: Not quantified in abstract - described as LLM 'outperformed physician baselines'
Primary Outcome: Clinical reasoning performance comparison between LLM and physicians
Nnt Or Sensitivity: Not reported - diagnostic accuracy metrics needed
Confidence Interval: Not reported
Clinical Application
Implementation would require significant infrastructure, training, and integration with existing clinical workflows Relevance to Australian practice unclear - would need TGA approval for clinical decision support tools, consideration of medico-legal implications, and integration with existing electronic health records Emergency department physicians and potentially other specialists involved in complex diagnostic reasoning
Abstract
More than 65 years ago, complex clinical diagnostic reasoning cases were introduced as the gold standard for the evaluation of expert medical computing systems, a standard that has held ever since. In this study, we report the results of a physician evaluation of a large language model (LLM) on challenging clinical cases across five experiments with a baseline of hundreds of physicians. We then report a real-world study comparing human expert and artificial intelligence (AI) second opinions in randomly selected patients in the emergency room of a major tertiary academic medical center. In all experiments, the LLM outperformed physician baselines and displayed continued improvement from prior generations of AI clinical decision support. Our study suggests that LLMs have eclipsed most benchmarks of clinical reasoning, motivating the urgent need for prospective trials.
References
- 1.Brodeur, P. G., Buckley, T. A., Kanjee, Z., Goh, E., Ling, E. B., Jain, P., Cabral, S., Abdulnour, R. E., Haimovich, A. D., Freed, J. A., Olson, A., Morgan, D. J., Hom, J., Gallo, R., McCoy, L. G., Mombini, H., Lucas, C., Fotoohi, M., Gwiazdon, M., Restifo, D., Restrepo, D., Horvitz, E., Chen, J., Manrai, A. K., & Rodman, A. (2026). Performance of a large language model on the reasoning tasks of a physician. Science, 384(6695). https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adz4433
Related Research
Journal of critical care
Artificial intelligence and computerized decision support in adult intensive care: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials
3 Aug 2026
Journal of pediatric surgery
Interpretable deep learning model for pediatric strangulated small bowel obstruction on CT: A multicenter study
3 Aug 2026
Telemedicine journal and e-health : the official journal of the American Telemedicine Association
Application of Telehealth and Artificial Intelligence in Military Health Care: A Promising Combination for the Future
3 Aug 2026
This content is for educational purposes for healthcare professionals only and does not constitute clinical advice. Clinical decisions should be based on individual patient assessment, current guidelines, and appropriate specialist consultation. Editorial Standards · Privacy Policy · Terms of Service